Re: Exact wording for non-prefixed CURIEs in @rel/@rev

Comments inline:

Manu Sporny wrote:
> Current issues with this proposal:
>    * Shane mentioned that these same rules should apply to @property.
>      Was that what the consensus was? I think it should, for
>      consistency.
>   
I think so.  I also think that Steven suggested we just conflate the 
collection of values (@property has some defined values now that are 
disjoint from the set @rel has).  Conflating the values doesn't really 
change anything in terms of the vocabulary.
>    * Shane also mentioned that we don't use the term "namespace" when
>      talking about prefix-mappings, but if we get rid of the "no prefix"
>      mapping, what do we call it? I'm going to continue calling it a
>      namespace until there is a suitable replacement (that isn't
>      "mapping")
>   
Well - I think in the CURIE definition we would call it the "default 
prefix value" - in other words, the value to use concatenate with the 
reference when no prefix is supplied.
>    * Mark, Shane, does getting rid of the "no prefix" mapping screw
>      anything else up?
>   
CURIEs talk about the /default prefix/ and /no prefix/ independently so 
someone could do clever things.  We don't need to do clever things 
here.  I think it would be fine in XHTML+RDFa to say there is no default 
prefix per-se.   There are some reserved /reference /values, and those 
map to some pre-defined URIs.  End of story. 
>    * If we put these rules in there, should we get rid of the colon-only
>      CURIE form (ie... ":next")?
>   
I believe we should.  I don't think it adds anything.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com